Subscribe: Comments on The Lippard Blog: Goldwater Institute: Confused priorities
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade C rated
Language: English
child abuse  child  children  food  health  libertarian  people  piece orac  piece  polio  read  rfk piece  stance  state  vaccination 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on The Lippard Blog: Goldwater Institute: Confused priorities

Comments on The Lippard Blog: Goldwater Institute: Confused priorities

Updated: 2017-12-15T05:19:50.385-07:00


On that RFK piece, please see Orac:http://oracknow...


On that RFK piece, please see Orac:

BTW, shortly after making this post, I came across this in The Economist (Jan. 21-27, 2006, p. 12): "To combat the threat to public health from a lack of these nutrients, governments encourage food makers to add them to some products. ... Some people see this, and the accompanying campaigns to persuade people to eat healthy food, as a nannying intrusion into personal freedom. That is a moot point when the taxpayer so often has to pick up the bill for the medical consequences of careless eating. But there is one area in which the state is generally felt, even by most libertarians, to have a legitimate interest, and that is the protection of children. Children cannot necessarily make informed decisions and neither can their parents on their behalf, be they ever-so-loving. And that concern is particularly relevant when a child is not yet born."

I have to stand behind my position on vaccination--polio had been all-but-eradicated, but it's now back (five cases of children with polio, after none for 26 years), in the Amish community in Minnesota, because of their anti-vaccination stance. Allowing a child to get easily preventable polio sounds like child abuse to me.

I have two comments..I can see a libertarian getti...


I have two comments..

I can see a libertarian getting all huffy over the state requiring someone to fasten a seatbelt or wear a motorcycle helmet; in most cases you are only affecting your own family in case of 'something goes wrong'. However, failing to immunize your children not affects your child's health but the health of your community. The eradication of a disease like polio only happened because of an organized, multinational, world wide campaign. Napolitano may have worded the card in an offensive way to a libertarian's ear, but the policy is 100% in line with protecting the health of the entire state. Good for her.

(As an aside, Mrs. Woodmansee will have a cow when Bush declares marshal law when an outbreak of avian flu happens.)

But... I strongly disagree with your stance that not immunizing your child is a form of child abuse. The jury truly is not out on what the effects are of certain immunizations. When my wife and I had our children, we took no CW for granted and researched everything. For instance, I was born at a time when breast feeding was discourage and circumcision was push by the establishment. When it came making core decisions about my child, nothing was taken for granted.
After torturous debate, we did opt to have our children immunized. However, after reading a lot of the literature out there, I would not hold it against a parent for opting out.

If you have not read the Robert Kennedy Jr article on mercury in vaccines, please do:
I have read A LOT of commentary as a result of this piece (both for and against), and I still don't know what to think.